Partly allowed

D.Ashokan v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Kerala HC4 Apr 2008CRP/383/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside orders of District Judges that refused compensation for diminution in land value due to lack of evidence. The Court permitted revision petitioners and respondents to adduce satisfactory evidence to rehear the specific issue of land value reduction.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the awards refusing compensation for diminution in land value; permitted parties to adduce evidence for a fresh hearing.

D.Ashokan Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶5

CRP.No. 383 of 2007(B)

¶6

---------------------------OP(EA)414/2002 of ADDL.D.C. , ALAPPUZHA.

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER

¶8

---------------------------------------

¶9

D.ASHOKAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O DAMODHARAN, THRACHERI KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, MAHADEVIKAD P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH

¶11

RESPONDENT: COUNTER PETITIONER

¶12

---------------------------------------------

¶13

POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, LOCAL OFFICE AT NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPPAD.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶15

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2008, ALONG WITH CRP 403/07 AND OTHER CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶17

C.R.P. NOs. 383, 403, 404, 405, 446, 509 & 531 OF 2007

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2008.

¶19

CRP 383/07 is preferred against the award of the Addl. District Judge, Alappuzha in O.P.(EA)414/02 whereby the Court declined to grant any compensation for diminution in land value on the ground that there is no acceptable evidence. It is that portion of the award that is under challenge. In CRP 403/07 the Court has not granted any compensation with respect to the diminution in land value on account of the absence of the evidence. In CRP 405/07 the Court below has only granted compensation for the value of trees cut and as no Commission was taken out and in the absence of evidence no compensation was granted for the diminution in land value.

¶20

CRP 404/07 is preferred against the order in O.P. (EA)729/02 whereby the Court declined to grant diminution

¶21

CRP NOs. 383, 403, 404, 405, 446, 509 & 531 OF 2007

¶22

-:2:-

¶23

in land value in the absence of acceptable evidence. In CRP 446/07 the Court below refused to grant any compensation for diminution in land value and it is against that award the revision petitioner has come up in revision. CRP 509/07 is preferred against the order in O.P.(EA)43/04. There also the Court below declined to grant any compensation for diminution in land value on the ground that there is no materials available to arrive at a decision. In CRP 531/07 the Court below granted only Rs.10,200, i.e., Rs.3,000/- for value of the trees cut and Rs.7,200/- as diminution in land value. It had taken into account only 3 cents of land as affected, fixed the market value at Rs.8,000/- per cent and awarded 30% as diminution in land value.

¶24

In all these cases it can be seen that Court below

¶25

refused to award compensation for diminution in land value on account of the factum of non-availability of evidence or taking out a Commission in order to arrive at a decision and it has to be found out whether by the drawl of the line really the utility of the land has been reduced. For example when a

¶26

CRP NOs. 383, 403, 404, 405, 446, 509 & 531 OF 2007

¶27

-:3:-

¶28

line is drawn over the middle of a property certainly it will cause handicap. The property cannot be put in to full use which will affect the enjoyment. These are all matters which the petitioners have to bring to the notice of the Court. There is certainly laches on the part of the revision petitioners in these cases and the particulars necessary or evidence are not produced before the Court for consideration. It is submitted that if an opportunity is given they will be able to establish before the Court regarding the same. Therefore I set aside the awards of the Courts below partly, i.e., only with respect to the refusal of granting compensation for diminution in land value and permit the revision petitioners herein to adduce satisfactory, cogent and convincing evidence for the purpose of consideration of the said question before the Court below. Needless to say the respondents also be permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence to counter the evidence produced by the revision petitioners in these cases and thereafter, after hearing both sides the Court is directed to pass revised awards with

¶29

CRP NOs. 383, 403, 404, 405, 446, 509 & 531 OF 2007

¶30

-:4:-

¶31

respect to the point of diminution in land value. The parties

¶32

are directed to appear before the Court below on 3.6.2008.

¶33

The C.R.Ps. are disposed of accordingly.

¶34

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶35

ul/-

D.Ashokan v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Ashokan v. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs Sri.Choyikandi Kelappan

Suresh P.@ Sathyamangalam Suresh Vs Suresh Kumar G.S.@ Kollayil Suresh

Smitha Vs K.R.Babu

K.S.E.B Rep. by Its Secretary Vs Sri.T.S.Gopinathan

P.S.Rajagopalan Vs Thrissiva Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd.

Lakshmi Vs Prakash